Sports.. the techno stuff or the athlete?

[Warship NWS]

I just watched a piece on the news about the new advanced swimming suits that are helping to break world records and there was some comments on the controversy of techno stuff vs the athlete. Personally, I find the argument a bit ludicrous. Being an lone wolf outdoor speed skater for much of my life I know I will buy whatever I think works best for me in terms of equipment. I do not know of any sport that does not rely on the best equipment available for the cost.. so what is the big deal? Unfair advantage is one thing so there are checks and balances in place to help counter cheating but if all athletes have access to the same equipment then that to me is not cheating. Is it the equipment or the individual? If the individual is in question then put them on individual time trials, harder workouts, etc.. To worry about an advanced swimsuit when every sport, amateur or professional, has athletes using whatever equipment is available, and approved for use, then what is the big deal? Heck if anything, drafting other athletes in racing sports that rely on physical power should be challenged more then the equipment.. but that could be another debate entirely. ;)

Just my few cents..;)

[djcyclone]

I watched a news report on that at the docters office the other day. I think the whole swimming thing might simpley be a pshychological thing. It is simply because athletetes think that it is helping them rather then it actually helping them.

I imagine that there is less drag on the swimmer due to the matierials, but I think that the swimmer is still the deciding factor. As long as that is the case, I see no big deal with it. When it gets to the point of the technology doing more work than the swimmer, then I think we will have a problem, but until then we are fine. It is just like Nascar Racing. When something comes out that makes a car lighter and faster, then of course everyone goes out and buys it and all of the cars become equiped with it. This is no different, and so if a swimmer is without it, then they have no excuse.

Besides this is something that will only be noticed at the olympics and such. The swimmers there are already at the top of their game, so they are not going to risk not having the latest and greatest swim wear.

[asnrobert]

In a similar vein, I recall seeing something about this amputee who was entering the Olympics as a runner (using an artificial leg). At first he was turned down (because the artificial leg was actually more efficient than a normal leg), but I believe the Olympic commission relented.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I watched a news report on that at the docters office the other day. I think the whole swimming thing might simpley be a pshychological thing. It is simply because athletetes think that it is helping them rather then it actually helping them.

I imagine that there is less drag on the swimmer due to the matierials, but I think that the swimmer is still the deciding factor. As long as that is the case, I see no big deal with it. When it gets to the point of the technology doing more work than the swimmer, then I think we will have a problem, but until then we are fine. It is just like Nascar Racing. When something comes out that makes a car lighter and faster, then of course everyone goes out and buys it and all of the cars become equiped with it. This is no different, and so if a swimmer is without it, then they have no excuse.

Besides this is something that will only be noticed at the olympics and such. The swimmers there are already at the top of their game, so they are not going to risk not having the latest and greatest swim wear.

DJ and Chris:

Sports always go thru these cycles when certain types of equipment are all the rage, or certain types of diets or even the preparation and conditioning are the thing. Remember when swimmers used to shave their bodies to cut drag? Now they use advanced suits. But still if you aren't at the pool at 6:30AM doing your laps and building speed and endurance, no amount of equipment short of gills and fins is going to make you a world class swimmer. Equipment will always evolve, but the athlete still has to work to win. The Golf Channel has longest drive contests where the players use cutting edge clubs and smack the ball 300 plus yards. But most of them can't keep the shot in play and lack the other tools to play professionally. Equipment can only carry you so far.

As long as the atheletes aren't using performance enhancing substances and the equipment is approved by the governing boards, I'm not going to worry abour what the athlete wears. They still have to have talent, discipline and drive. Then they get the merchandise endorsements and the babes!:D

[Warship NWS]

A thought process,

I have always found it interesting how some are considered the "world's best".. to me that is a bit arrogant, no offense to those that achieve greatness at sports - this is intended as a general commentary of sports overall. There is no way to know what everyone can do unless each probable canidate has the lifestyle to sacrifice and the MONEY to compete in major events. Time always equals money and you have to have time to practice, work out, etc.. It is no wonder that many of those in sports retire to spend time with "family" - the time that they lost while competing at sports. The money, via sponsors, is required so you can have the time to train, get to the races, pay for equipment (which is never cheap), get recognition, etc.. What if you do not have that money or have the ability to sacrifice much of your life for a sport?

This is not knocking those that succeed at sports but there is only so much money and time that most people that do have talent and drive have available and the only recognition they might be lucky enough to recieve is from maybe a few small time events.

Just some thoughts about sports in general. There is always someone better out there and if all those that have the talent and drive had the money and time I think sports would be a far more interesting series of events. To compete at the elite level of sports requires a huge amount of sacrifice, money, and time.. not everyone is lucky enough to allow for all of those requirements.

One of my prefered comments is that there are far more talented people out there that do not compete then those that do compete at sports.

Thanks.

[Ed Rotondaro]

A thought process,

I have always found it interesting how some are considered the "world's best".. to me that is a bit arrogant, no offense to those that achieve greatness at sports - this is intended as a general commentary of sports overall. There is no way to know what everyone can do unless each probable canidate has the lifestyle to sacrifice and the MONEY to compete in major events. Time always equals money and you have to have time to practice, work out, etc.. It is no wonder that many of those in sports retire to spend time with "family" - the time that they lost while competing at sports. The money, via sponsors, is required so you can have the time to train, get to the races, pay for equipment (which is never cheap), get recognition, etc.. What if you do not have that money or have the ability to sacrifice much of your life for a sport?

This is not knocking those that succeed at sports but there is only so much money and time that most people that do have talent and drive have available and the only recognition they might be lucky enough to recieve is from maybe a few small time events.

Just some thoughts about sports in general. There is always someone better out there and if all those that have the talent and drive had the money and time I think sports would be a far more interesting series of events. To compete at the elite level of sports requires a huge amount of sacrifice, money, and time.. not everyone is lucky enough to allow for all of those requirements.

One of my prefered comments is that there are far more talented people out there that do not compete then those that do compete at sports.

Thanks.

Chris:

This is quite true. Especially for sports that require lots of infrastructure like a swimming pool or a soccer field or a hockey rink. You don't see too many inner city kids excelling in these sports, whereas you can put a baskeball hoop up just about anywhere. Who knows how many undiscovered Tiger Woods are shooting hoops rather than swinging a golf club?

As far as devoting the time to be good at a sport, now more than ever this is true. I live in a fairly populous area that has a decent median income. As a result we have several indoor sports facilities for kids to play in when the weather turns cold. If you are serious about competing, you have start when you're about 6 or 7 years old and play throughout the year. While the younger kids might not stay focused year round, the older ones are expected to. My youngest son plays soccer and is quite good at it (allow for proud father's bragging). But to be good enough to be on a travel team means he plays in a rec league in the fall as well as practicing outside. Then come November he plays indoor soccer until early April. Then it's back outdoors for practice until the travel games start in late April. Two games a week until late June are the norm, then more practice until the end of season tournament in mid-July. Plus he attends sport camps throughout the summer. I really only have two weeks in July and the month of August when he's not involved with soccer, but that's the price he and I have to pay if he really wants to compete.

You can see why a guy like Brett Favre finally decides that it's time to stop playing football because it takes too out of his life to compete at that level, especially as you get older. What good's all the money if you can't spend time with your family?

[old_pop2000]

Chris:

This is quite true. Especially for sports that require lots of infrastructure like a swimming pool or a soccer field or a hockey rink. You don't see too many inner city kids excelling in these sports, whereas you can put a baskeball hoop up just about anywhere. Who knows how many undiscovered Tiger Woods are shooting hoops rather than swinging a golf club?

As far as devoting the time to be good at a sport, now more than ever this is true. I live in a fairly populous area that has a decent median income. As a result we have several indoor sports facilities for kids to play in when the weather turns cold. If you are serious about competing, you have start when you're about 6 or 7 years old and play throughout the year. While the younger kids might not stay focused year round, the older ones are expected to. My youngest son plays soccer and is quite good at it (allow for proud father's bragging). But to be good enough to be on a travel team means he plays in a rec league in the fall as well as practicing outside. Then come November he plays indoor soccer until early April. Then it's back outdoors for practice until the travel games start in late April. Two games a week until late June are the norm, then more practice until the end of season tournament in mid-July. Plus he attends sport camps throughout the summer. I really only have two weeks in July and the month of August when he's not involved with soccer, but that's the price he and I have to pay if he really wants to compete.

You can see why a guy like Brett Favre finally decides that it's time to stop playing football because it takes too out of his life to compete at that level, especially as you get older. What good's all the money if you can't spend time with your family?

I guess it boils down to the fact that there is the gladiator in all of us, it's just stronger in some, than others. Even in Meerkat Manor, the males and females play fight to learn how to compete in the Meerkat society. All air breathing animals do it, it's just our way.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I guess it boils down to the fact that there is the gladiator in all of us, it's just stronger in some, than others. Even in Meerkat Manor, the males and females play fight to learn how to compete in the Meerkat society. All air breathing animals do it, it's just our way.

Dennis:

It's a case of "How bad do you want it?". Millions of kids play sports, what fraction of them ever can make a living at it?

[Warship NWS]

Dennis:

It's a case of "How bad do you want it?". Millions of kids play sports, what fraction of them ever can make a living at it?

That is why I said that money is a huge factor. You need money to have a chance to compete and then you need even more money to keep competing - at that point you either need rich sponsors or rich parents. Once money gets involved IMHO sports are hardly ever fair to all those that have the talent and the drive but not the funds, time, or facilities to train and compete. The only athletes that make money at sports.. are those with sponsors or advertisers.

Thanks.